Re: [PATCH] mm: set_page_dirty_balance() vs ->page_mkwrite()

[Nick Piggin]

On Tuesday 09 October 2007 09:36, David Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 04:37:00PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Tuesday 09 October 2007 02:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > > Force a balance call if ->page_mkwrite() was successful.
> >
> > Would it be better to just have the callers set_page_dirty_balance()?
>
> block_page_mkwrite() is just using generic interfaces to do this,
> same as pretty much any write() system call. The idea was to make it
> as similar to the write() call path as possible...
>
> However, unlike generic_file_buffered_write(), we are not calling
> balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited(mapping) between
> ->prepare/commit_write call pairs.  Perhaps this should be added to
> block_page_mkwrite() after the page is unlocked....

That sounds pretty sane, in terms of matching with
generic_file_buffered_write.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/